As far as I can tell, people accept that politics is a bit of a murky game and things may not be completely clear. My reading of it is that even if Rudd is intentionally telling a bit of a porky (which I havn’t seen evidence of), well, people don’t mind. Especially if it’s a porkie that doesn’t matter, and especially as people assume that porkies are not unusual, from all sides.

The strange thing is when people, such as some here, obsess over it. Doesn’t that strike people as a little odd? Don’t people have more interesting things in their lives to think about?

BTW, Greg Rudd, Kevin’s brother who defended Kevin’s recollection of whatever happened when they were young, was my English teacher in Yr 10 in 1988 in Qld. He was a very good teacher and told us about this bright brother who spoke mandarin and who was or had been a diplomat overseas (or something). I did my best in the English subject in high school with him as the English teacher.

I think you better check your sources again because the coroner did not say Rudd died because of what he drank.

You were not around in those times. No-one knew how much drink could affect you. You drove if you felt good.
Rudd’s father was a keen bowler hence his trip. There is no evidence he over indulged.

No CL Rudd was changed mid term, all of a sudden and needed assistance from friends to do it. Moreover you cannot explain why Mrs Rudd immediately left after this kerfuffle and the wonderful and generous offer.
If you are correct then this act of behaviour is contrary to what she did all her life.

No it is far mere likely this paragon of the community gained an improved asset he has spent nothing on and was not going to give a widow any compensation in lieu of.

Why did she never ever speak to him again. Unlike Howard she understood what the word meant.

It has nothing to do with abuse. The obvious problem, as you know, is that you go at the blog in a dogmatic way that is simply beyond the level that anyone else is prepared to invest, thus converting a public discussion into a polemical battleground, where it is everyone else against you until no-one else could be bothered going on with it.

Not one other commenter has agreed with your distasteful take on the gruesome details of the death of Kevin Rudd’s father, yet you power along, alone, into the dark night, tapping over-enthusiastically away, regardless, restating, restating, restating, restating, as if you imagine that no-one can understand you unless you restate everything 20 times. This insults the intelligence of readers, debases the quality of the discussion and stops others from participating. You are surely not so foolish as to take restating to exhaustion as winning a debate?

It is of little account here, for this is the ratty end of a 100+ comments. But even if it wasn’t, then I don’t think anyone would have a problem if you didn’t make repetitive claims of certainty about matters where even Blind Freddy can see that there are not only good arguments on the other side, but plenty of room for doubt in between. You’re always welcome. I’m only asking for a little personal restraint on your behalf in the interests of others.

There is no contradiction re the daughter’s story. The Rudds were offered a generous period of grace but they moved at a time that suited them anyway - probably based on the school term. There is no evidence of improvement to the property in any case, except the claims made by Kevin. (And we know what they’re worth). Small communities of that kind have long corporate memories and tales of cruelty to widows become folkloric. The locals don’t agree with the Rudd mythology.

He drove to a bowling club to play bowls. He had both lunch and dinner.
There is NO record of him being drunk at all.

All I am saying is that Mrs Rudd behavioue is perfectly consistent with Young Kevin’s claim whilst the daughters claim isn’t.

There is no question Mr Rudd built up goodwill in the dairyfarm yet there is no record of his family recieving that nor of gaining any recompense from the improved asset he owned. For such a ‘pillar of society’ that is pretty poor form.

I’m perfectly calm, Chris. None of my assertions have included abuse or obscenities. You, Homer and Fyodor, however, have all abused me for providing the truthful analysis of the timeline and comparative issues involved. Robert’s nudge-nudge use of the moniker “cunse” has also been acceptable on two of your Troppo threads. (I don’t resent it - having no abhorrence of what he’s alluding to - but merely note the fact that you’re on-board with genital gags). You can behave like Soviet bullies all you like with talk of madness, “bizarre claims” and the pills I’m not taking. That’s all standard thread fare for the embattled. But I’m right: on the circumstances of Bert’s death; on the coronial clearance of the doctors involved; on the tendentiousness of Rudd’s ‘life on the streets’ nonsense; on his lies about Brian Burke; on his bald-faced whopper to Laurie Oakes about his living arrangements in Canberra; on the absurdity and sliminess of his ludicorous attack on three unimpeachable Australian businessmen (which he has now dropped).

I’ll bow out, though, because Christopher’s nervously overwrought correspondents tell him they can’t cope. Fair enough.

The behaviour of Mrs Rudd and the ‘caring ‘ behaviour of Mr Low is contradictory.

NO renter in the 60s would ever make improvements in the building they are living in UNLESS they received some guarantee they would see some of that improvement at a later time.
Quite clearly that pillar of society did not do that.

Hence there is every reason for why Mrs Rudd not only abruptly and extremely quickly left that place but why she ensured Kevin was put into a school where his education would ensure he would never need to rely on pillars of society.

As for his daughter what else would he say!!!

You know I don’t want to do that, not only because we go back aways, but because I’m also averse to deleting folks generally, and especially folks who might think they’ve been deleted just because they’ve got different views to mine. Point of pride, that. A good discussion turns on welcoming as many views as are reasonable, distinguishing differences, carefully assessing evidence, conceding what you can and meeting people where possible - not knocking all comers on the friggin’ head and dominating the space through brute persistence.

You know this, and you know you’re pressing it; and if you monopolise threads with repetitive, extreme polemic, I’ll appeal to the delete button and the Troppo censors. This is a group blog hosted by people of various political predispositions. It’s not my blog. It’s not your blog. Everyone should feel comfortable with contributing their view, however different - not only you, but including you, I hope. Equally, no-one should feel comfortable in demanding a monopoly.

I reckon it behoves you to trust others to actually read your comments, and if you’re not supported, so be it. Don’t pull your punches, but if you cannot add anything fresh to what you’ve already said, there’s no point in repetition or upping the ampage on the same, for it will not make you any more convincing - only put people off and generally ruin threads.

These sort of blogging tactics are oh so 2004. Move on, move up, and get with it Lad. This is 2007. This is the Era of the Rudd. Sorry. No inflame meant by the last.

Alternatively, if you don’t wish to talk to grown-ups but roll around in the dirt for therapy, there’s always tim ‘The Real Turkey’ blair’s place.

Cheers.

’twere ever. From a strategic point it’s interesting, however. How these things are publicly received can give a good indication as to where sentiment resides. At the moment, would you say the public receive the Coalition’s efforts in the same way you do? If so, how so? And if not, what happens then? Do people have to come somehow to learn what you know (if you know what I mean), or what then…

Robert, Abbott is doing the honourable thing in calling Kev to account for dragging Aubrey Low’s name “through the mud” (his daughter’s words) FOR YEARS. Abbott and the Treasurer have also reminded people that Rudd is yet to apologise for, withdraw or explain his bizarre hatchet job on Ron Walker, a man who isn’t a convicted criminal - unlike Labor mates, Messrs Burke and Mokbel. Funny, as I recall, the nation’s sanctimonious lefties had the time of their lives making fun of Abbott and news of his adopted-out son’s alleged re-emergence. Then there was David Marr’s slime-job on John Howard’s dead father AND GRANDFATHER. And, of course, there was Beazley speech-writer Bob Ellis’s obscene attack on Peter Costello’s wife.

But little Kev cops a serve (in response to the Nuclear Businessman Conspiracy Theory) and Julia and her skirts are quickly dispatched to defend the cry-baby.

This all happens against a background public awareness being covered as “meanwhile the Government is keeping up its intense attack on Rudd” thereby giving the subtle impression that Rudd deserves it, there’s something wrong with him, and he’ll break eventually therefore is not up to the rigours of Prime Ministership.

There’ll be other takeouts of course, putting the govt on the nose, but overall and in time the attack strategy won’t play out as publicly as this latest media swamped outburst, which works for the Coalition’s strategy.

1) Rudd’’s mum left very very abruptly
2) Rudd’s dad obviously improved the building in which they lived
3) Rudd’s mother makes a very quick decision to put Rudd into a catholic school known for its ability to get the best out of ‘good’ students.
4) NO mention of being drunk etc on death certificate.

These facts at at odds with the daughter’s recollection but not Rudd’s.

My guess is that the Landlord made a verbal agreement with Rudd’s father he would honour any building improvements which he reneged on.
This leads Mrs Rudd to ensure she gets out of the place as soon as possible and ensure Young Kevin is never treated like this again!